Symantec's Genesis to Usher in a New Age of Trust?

eldavojohn writes "Symantec has announced that they will be creating a massive security package called Genesis. Semantec has set their goal to 'Security 2.0' which is proposed to be 'a new age of trust on the Internet.' From the article: 'Symantec plans a one-stop software service tying together anti-virus, anti-spam, firewall and a host of other PC optimization technologies...' This is certainly something the common computer user could buy instead of having to fork over cash for every component. I don't think I'll be purchasing it though."

Genesis?

[dorkygeek]

Let's hope it was designed intelligently then...

But seriously, I'd rather have the security problems fixed at the source, instead of having to add layers and layers of so called "security software".

Internet Security

[PaladinAlpha]

Really, this doesn't seem all that revolutionary -- Symantec, like McAfee, like any other company serious in the business, ALREADY offers an integrated suite of tools (Internet Security) and no matter the advancement of interplay and integration I have a hard time believing that Genesis will come across to the average user as being so much more. Wait and see, I guess.

On Symantec's new software

[Haiku 4 U]

Genesis? Sounds good.
Secure from malware at last!
So, is it Linux?

Re:Now if they can get their cpu use down...

[TubeSteak]

I can't think of one major software package that has reduced bloat over the years.

I also hate the trend towards dumbing down the user interface. Some virus scan progs & firewalls practically hide all the settings from you.

Very few major anti-virus companies these days will put out a consumer (not the corporate or institutional package) piece of software that is stripped down. Feature bloat is the name of the game.

I'd rather have 3 or 4 small efficient programs than one big POS to replace them.

Seems too late

[bhaskie]

With anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-spyware, intrusion prevention, firewall, PC optimization and maintenance elements all bundled togetherm this is gonna be one hell of a system performance issue.
"Both Genesis and the next versions of Norton's traditional security products will be designed to work on Vista, Microsoft's forthcoming operating system, due later this year, as well as Windows XP."

Well, seems this does not do linux. Only Windows XP. But looks like Microsoft already has OneCare which does the same stuff. So I guess this is too late a genesis for symantec.

Re:On Symantec's new software

[johncadengo]

Hey Haiku 4 U
Do you always write comments
As haiku poems?

It'll never happen

[ManOfMidnight]

I honestly hope I'm proven wrong, but I just don't see "a new age of Internet trust" happening.. ever. To even put a dent in the mal-ware industry, this new software will have to use up every last bit of resources the Vista-generation computers might have. Even then, there will always be a way around it! Any/every new feature this new software might introduce will also introduce, along with it, a new flaw; another vulnerability which will have to be patched. Thus, the circle will continue, only in another location: Vista.

More impotent than Cheney... during a heart attack

[unknownideal]

Symantec and McAfee are about as effective at problem solving as the Bush administration. These are two products that render a machine useless by loading hundreds of megs of unnecessary graphics and who-knows-what while simultaneously blocking network communication, and popping up every four seconds to tell you about the "attack" so narrowly averted thanks to it. Every so often it asks you for more money.

I went red and started recommending Kaspersky, but my clients have trouble getting it installed thanks to its ridiculous registration system. Instead of a stream-lined system, you have to download a key file and 'show Kaspersky your papers,' if you catch my drift.

Now I just install the free version of Avast. No problems so far.

The first one of you to write software that blocks terra attacks from the inner-web is not going to have any trouble paying off that student loan. Promise.

New Age of Trust?

[__aatgod8309]

The assumption appears to be that we trust Symantec...

Re:Too little, too late

[bersl2]

If it ever is included in Windows as a standard part of the OS, it's going to be the first target of opportunity. I mean, what malware writer wouldn't love to have a security-utility monoculture in which to amply hide his program? Once you root a machine, you can have an anti-virus scanner, firewall, or whatever lie all you want to an unsuspecting user.

Security through diversity. Remember that.

Trust includes more than IT security

[Morty]

If Symantec is trying to teach people to "trust" the Internet, they're doing people a disservice. The Internet is a way for people to communicate with other people; any communication includes the possibility of lies and fraud. Yes, the Internet introduces new technical types of ways for people to cheat and attack each other (phishing, OS vulnerabilities, viruses, trojan horses, etc.) but even if you solve all the technical issues, you still fundamentally have people communicating with each other. Strangers should not blindly trust each other regardless of context.

If Jane AOLer meets Joe MSNer on IRC, even if she has "Genesis" and "Leviticus" too, should she trust him any more than if she met him in real life? No. If Jane AOLer shops at FuzzySlippersOnline, should she trust them any more than she trusts her local brick and mortar CoolBootsEmporium? Of course not. The online world is not to be trusted, any more than the big blue room outside is to be trusted.

Re:Genesis?

[Al Dimond]

There have been plenty of buffer overrun vulnerabilities allowing potential arbitrary code execution on all major operating systems. There have been plenty of priviledge escalation vulnerabilities on all major operating systems. All you need to get from there to a real exploit is either (a) a vulnerable server listening on some port or (b) some user to click on the wrong link or open the wrong attachment.

90s Outlook had lots of problems. 90s IE had lots of problems. There's a big problem with user accounts on Windows and how difficult it is to run as non-admin. And Windows doesn't have effective tools like sudo to grant occasional privledges beyond the usual. These tools can be built onto Windows. Third-party developers can be pressured to release software that works with the security model. Exploits can be patched, and quality control can be improved. And there are a lot of people working for Microsoft on these very things.

Microsoft may never fully win the battle against hackers. But then again, I don't know if anyone ever can. Even OpenBSD has had security holes in its default install a few times, and it's fighting a much less malicious group of hackers than Windows is. I love using GNU/Linux; it's cool that Unix has had sudo since 1980 and a tradition of sane security practices. That doesn't mean we should get arrogant about security.

Re:Now if they can get their cpu use down...

[Parham]

I switched from Norton about a year ago and I have to admit I couldn't be more happier with the speed of my computer. I currently have AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic [free-av.com] installed and I couldn't be more happy with it. All the settings are available to met, it's fast, and it tells me exactly what it's doing with it's guard feature (it shows exactly what files it's scanning as you use your computer). The only setback is that the free version doesn't automatically update for you and the scheduler is a little funny to use, but those are things I'd gladly do manually in exchange for MUCH MUCH better speeds.

Core Force

[Alejo]

This looks like a reaction to Core Force [coresecurity.com], a free Windows tool taking security to the highest level. Only missing an antivirus. A bit annoying at first, as you have to decide what can get through or not but it's getting there with the community of users submitting profiles.

Why wait?

What anti-virus?

[Martindale]

I have the best anti-badware known to man: Common sense.